I have a Mossberg MVP in 5.56 that takes the AR mags. I bought a red dot for it but after 4 years still haven't put it on.
I like taking my time with the bolt action.

I did a Ruger American Ranch Gen 1 some years ago in 7.62x39 that takes my Ruger Mini-30 magazines. I put a Leupold 2-7 with a FireDot reticle on it and it makes a nice "ranch" gun (go figure) with a bullet with some oomph.

In 5.56 I think the CZ Trail is super neat but apparently they aren't really very accurate.

Some thinking on the 223/556 discussion - If a new rifle can chamber both calibers and one is potentially more powerful than the other -
Wouldn’t it be prudent on the part of the manufacturer to build it to handle both?
How about when considering liability? Would a manufacturer WANT to go to court to defend their hardware from a simple mistake on the part of the customer?
Why not just make it handle 5.56 safely?
My bet is that ALL rifle manufacturers will be building to handle 5.56.
Since I am in the market for a .223/5.56 bolt action, why would I buy something that won’t do both?

^That's a good question. My understanding is that accuracy is better when shooting .223 from a chamber that was specifically designed for it. It would not be an unreasonable expectation that the purchaser of a bolt action rifle have a keen interest in an optimally accurate platform.

Unfortunately, a .223 chamber is also structurally weaker than a 5.56 chamber, which explains the danger of shooting the potentially stronger 5.56 from it. (This is due to the 5.56 chamber's longer and more gradual "freebore" section before the actual rifling, which allows better management of the excess pressure of the 5.56 round.)

Summing up, the .223 chamber is more accurate, but can't handle higher pressure, whilst the 5.56 chamber may be less accurate, but has a safety margin for higher pressures. Apparently the military places greater emphasis on more powerful ammunition, even at the expense of slightly lower accuracy.

[Incidentally, all Ruger Mini-14s can safely chamber both .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO cartridges (though early Minis were stamped .223 rather than 5.56) EXCEPT for the Target Model, which only chambers the .223. Again, to optimize accuracy with a dedicated chamber.]


5.56 vs .223 by kpkina, on Flickr

My 14" and 16" barrel AR15s are chambered in 5.56. My 18" and 20" barrel AR15s are chambered in 223. My bolt action is chambered in 223. I'm pretty certain I've shot some 5.56 factory rounds in the 18" AR with the 223 chamber. I'm not aware of any issues. I haven't shot 5.56 rounds in either the 20" AR or the bolt action.

IMO the reason for a 223 chamber is accuracy. In all my 5.56 barrels, equivalent 223 loads are more accurate than their 5.56 factory loads. Sometimes slightly more accurate, sometimes noticeably more accurate. IMO this puts a big blow to the thought that 223 loads are only accurate in 223 chambers. Factory 5.56 loads tend to have about 100 fps higher MVs than their 223 counterparts in my rifles. This additional MV increases kinetic energy a little, flattens the drop at distance a little, and reduces wind drift a little. But not all that much of an improvement an any category, and at the cost of accuracy. So I only shoot 223 loads, regardless of chamber.

All of my 5.56 rifles are pretty darn accurate with 223 loads. I've posted a number of their targets, across a few rifle threads on SF. The 223 rifles are more accurate, especially as distances increase. Understand that much of the accuracy issues with 223/5.56 rifles come down to the shooter's fundamentals. Well....except for the rifles and barrels which just aren't designed/manufactured to shoot with great accuracy.

I know that talented handloaders can produce great accuracy with their 5.56 loads in 5.56 chambers. But I don't see that same accuracy with factory 5.56 loads in 5.56 chambers. I've seen that quality factory 223 loads from Hornady and Federal produce neck-and-neck accuracy in my rifles against talented handloaders in their 223 chambered rifles.

It's my understanding that a chamber with a longer freebore is not necessarily less accurate, but is potentially so. Shooting .223 in a .223 chamber simply removes all doubt.

maybe semantics, and I may be over thinking,
.

but how can a chamber for one (223) be less or more strong than the other(556) when the chamber is the same?

the throat is the difference,


heard similar arguments on 7.62/308,

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
maybe semantics, and I may be over thinking

I don't think so. Doh! Yeah, it's the throat.

As I see it, chamber strength comes from the barrel design, barrel steel type, and steel thickness around the chamber. 223/556 has somewhat high pressure, but there's not a lot a powder in the case. This definitely isn't a 300 Weatherby Magnum. Based on what I've seen with high pressures in rifles, one might experience a sticky case that's difficult to extract or a blown primer. Both can be quite irritating. Both could be a big problem with a SD/HD rifle. I don't expect the bolt to be fractured and ejected back at the shooter. I don't expect the barrel to blow apart.

quote:

Originally posted by Spiff_P239:
Update:

Took the advice of a few people and ended up going with a Leopoldo Mark 3HD 1.4-4x20.

Back to the OP... Nice. That should work just fine for you.

Isn't this what the .223 Wylde is meant to do?

quote:

Originally posted by vinnybass:
Isn't this what the .223 Wylde is meant to do?

Yes. This is what AI Copilot has to say about it:

=================================
The .223 Wylde chamber is a hybrid design created to safely and accurately fire both .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO ammunition. Here’s what makes it unique:

Throat Design: The Wylde chamber uses the external dimensions of the 5.56 NATO chamber but with a tighter freebore diameter closer to .223 Remington. This improves accuracy while maintaining safe pressure for 5.56 rounds.

Compatibility:

Can shoot .223 Remington (lower pressure, often more accurate)
Can shoot 5.56 NATO (higher pressure, military spec)

Accuracy Advantage: Popular among precision shooters because it combines the reliability of 5.56 chambers with the accuracy of .223 Rem chambers.
======================================

The Wilson Combat Protector S rifle I have has a Wylde chamber.

Some additional observations that are in no way recommendations or do they necessarily apply to other guns/situations.

I don’t know the chamber specifications of the two Tikka rifles I have that are marked for the 223 Remington cartridge, but they fire IMI 77 grain 5.56mm HPBT-Match ammunition with no high pressure signs. I may have fired M193 NATO stuff with the older rifle, but I don’t recall. If I did it was with no problems either.

Both of the Tikka rifles achieve more precise results with high quality 223 Rem ammunition than with the IMI. The same is true of a JP Enterprises JP-15 rifle that’s chambered for 5.56 and therefore according to some theories should not do as well. I have gotten the best results with Berger 77 grain OTM Tactical ammunition with the three rifles. For example, in recent side by side tests with my Tikka T3x Super Varmint, at 100 yards I got two five-shot groups with the Berger that measured about 0.4 minutes of angle center to center. The IMI typically runs 0.8-0.9 MOA. As I posted elsewhere, I’ve also gotten very good precision results with Frontier 223 Remington 55 grain HP Match from the Super Varmint. Regardless of how Tikka chambers their 223 rifles to allow shooting the IMI 5.56 load, that ammunition does not perform as well as the best 223.

I am also convinced that if shooting 5.56 ammunition in rifles chambered for 223 Remington caused guns to blow up, we would hear of it all the time. Many (most?) gun owners are lucky to be able to tell the difference between 223 and 22 Long Rifle, except, maybe, because of the sizes of their boxes. I once had a student who had an S&W revolver chambered for 357 Magnum show up for training with a box of 357 SIG ammunition that a gun store clerk sold her.

(I was asked in another thread how I determined that the IMI was safe to fire in my Tikka rifles if there was a possibility that it would blow up the guns. I did that by firing the ammunition and I fired the ammunition in the guns because I was convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that it would not cause a catastrophic failure, only that that high pressure signs such as difficult extraction might be the result.)

The only caveat I’ll add is that shooters with bolt action rifles chambered for 223 are on average probably better educated about the subject than most AR-15 owners, so it is less likely the former would not know the cautions about 5.56 loads—but hardly impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by lyman:
maybe semantics, and I may be over thinking,
.

but how can a chamber for one (223) be less or more strong than the other(556) when the chamber is the same?

the throat is the difference,


heard similar arguments on 7.62/308,

It sort of is semantics. In this case, stronger does not mean physically stronger, but more forgiving, for lack of a better term. The longer, more gradually tapered freebore section gives the metal a little more leeway to handle higher pressure. There's extra "breathing room" to accomodate the additional pressure.

Yes, it's not the chamber, it's the throat, specifically the freebore section of the throat.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
It sort of is semantics. In this case, stronger does not mean physically stronger, but more forgiving, for lack of a better term. The longer, more gradually tapered freebore section gives the metal a little more leeway to handle higher pressure. There's extra "breathing room" to accomodate the additional pressure.

So....please provide a verified situation where 5.56 ammo in a 223 chamber resulted in damage to the barrel.
Or if it's just a "forgiving" issue, please provide a verified situation where the "more forgiving" 5.56 provided a benefit for the shooter.

I'm just reporting the prevailing theory. If you want to dispute it, that's up to you to do the research, my friend.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
I'm just reporting the prevailing theory. If you want to dispute it, that's up to you to do the research, my friend.

So in other words, there appears to be nothing supporting the prevailing theory. No empirical evidence, no on-scene reporting, no testing. Sounds a lot like a rumor that grows legs as it gets passed from hand to hand.

It could be. I don't know either way. As I said, I'm just reporting the theory. There was a question in this thread what the theory even was, so I explained it.

I had pazole for lunch today, and I am sure that it will be testing my freebore soon.

I HAVE seen 5.56 fired in a .223 AR upper repeatedly blow out primers.

Factory ammo in a factory upper. (This was the same rifle I saw the popped primer get lodged in the end of the gas key. This got the rifle's owner to stop shooting it, where my suggestions/requests did not) So from that angle there was potential to damage the firearm.

Yes, .223 uppers are few and far between these days, but they do exist.


As for the original topic... after many years and two different models, I finally took the scope off my Steyr Scout (.308) and put an Aimpoint H1 on it. I found I really liked it. It made me start thinking about doing it with a .223 bolt gun.
I knew in reality I'd never use it once the novelty wore off, so I didn't go through with it. But living a different life I could see it being a handy tool.

I can see not enjoying your AR, I always found them very boring for "regular shooting".